Explosive Weapons should flush infantry out of cover, not kill them in it.

Rothnang · 2013-04-06, 11:13 AM

I think this game would be significantly improved from its current form if the whole way that explosions work against infantry was changed. Currently explosions pretty much flat out kill you. The only way to kind of get around that is Flak Armor, but even with 50% more resistance you are still a pretty easy target.

The reason why I dislike that explosive weapons kill you very quickly is because it creates a situation where anything with a blast radius is an effective tool for killing people who are in cover. All you need to do is shoot it at something behind them or the ground under them and you are doing full damage to them. There are strategies people can use to avoid that, well coordinated infantry squads that attack a tank column from atop a hillcrest are a real pain to deal with since you can neither shoot objects behind them nor the ground below them if you're fighting them from below against the sky, but this is extremely limiting, and this is also a strategy that is particularly weak against any direct fire weapons.

Grenades a little bit better in the regard that they give you some time to get out of the way, but they still rely on the "move or die" approach to breaking cover as well.

I think explosive weapons should do a lot less damage to infantry. It should take at least two explosions of any type to kill any infantry target. It can hurt them pretty badly, take their shield off or something, but it should never just flat out kill them.

Basically all explosives should fall into one of five categories:

1. Standard explosives, like what you find on your dumbfire rockets, HEAT shells etc. These should have a very small blast radius, so they aren't super easy to inflict damage with, and essentially work like bodyshots for various sniper rifles, never a flat out kill.

2. Incendiaries. Basically these weapons don't just deal a big sum of damage, but instead cause a lingering damage effect on the ground that you have to get away from. Shooting multiple weapons of this type at the same area would not cause their effect to stack. These would be your spammable explosives, like the Zephyr. Shooting many of these charges can help you cover a large area, but it can't help you inflict more damage. Infantry has to leave an area that's been hit by these within a few seconds or burn up.

3. Fragmentation. These weapons have a large blast radius and are very damaging, but their projectiles don't explode on impact, but bounce around for a while, giving you time to avoid them. The damage should also be like sniper body shots, bad for your health, nothing you want to take two of, but survivable. These are your grenades, thumpers etc. This principle could also be used in bombs that disperse smaller explosives etc.

4. High Explosive. These weapons also have a very large blast radius and inflict a medium amount of damage, however, their concussive force blurs your vision, makes your ears ring, and is just generally disorienting for a short time after being hit. (1 second) These are your HE cannons, artillery shells, C4 etc. They can kill you, but the main reason why you want to avoid them is because it's impossible to shoot straight while these are bearing down on you.

5. Shape Charge. These weapons don't explode in a radius at all, but instead project a jet of explosive energy forward. They are purely for damaging heavily armored targets, and will only kill infantry when they are struck directly by the projectile. These are your specialized anti tank missiles and such.

Basically by breaking up all explosives into these categories what you get is a variety of explosive types that have effective counterplay without being useless. They all exist in some way or another to move the enemy around the battlefield more than to simply kill infantry easily. Of course they will still score kills as well, if someone shot your shield out and then an HE shell strikes where you're hiding to recharge it you're still dead, but at least it's a concerted effort between two enemies, not just a tank killing you at will.

Weapons like the Zephyr would be a lot better as Incendiaries that serve more as an area denial tool than as an actual killing weapon. Since a Zephyr shoots from above where there is always the ground to explode shells against it's pretty overpowered with explosive weapons, but well suited for using a weapon that's actually about selectively turning the ground hostile. Also giving a weapon like that diminishing returns for hitting the same area multiple times makes it a lot less overpowered, while still making it very useful.

Vehicles should rely much more on direct fire weapons for their high TTK infantry kills. Hitting someone with a heavy machine gun should be way more deadly then shooting the ground near them with a tank cannon. Then we can also start talking about coax guns and such, and get the fight between vehicles and infantry to a point where it's more enjoyable.

Sonny · 2013-04-06, 11:17 AM

Hi Rothnang,
I think these are great ideas. I think they would add a lot of tactical depth to the use of explosives rather than the 'spam and pray' approach used by players at the moment.

Sonny

Necroe · 2013-04-06, 02:56 PM

i agree, i mean generally why use AI weapons when AV can do the job jsut as well as well as damage vehicles.

Zulthus · 2013-04-06, 03:38 PM

Absolutely... there's even a simple explanation as to why AV weapons could do minimal damage to infantry.

Compared to a regular round, a rocket is slow. This gives the nanites in your armor enough time to redirect to the point of impact on your armor, harden, and minimize damage caused. Shots from a regular weapon are much too fast to be detected by the nanites, and thus do regular damage.

Rothnang · 2013-04-06, 05:53 PM

Yea, there are shields in Planetside 2, so really everything goes, since there is no real life equivalent to shields.

Illtempered · 2013-04-06, 06:12 PM

I don't die to explosives near as much as I die to bullet fire, so I'm afraid I disagree with your whole premise. When I'm in a class that is in danger of explosives, I cert flak armor. Problem solved.

So rockets should never be a "flat out kill"? Even if they hit somebody in the eye?

Rothnang · 2013-04-06, 09:57 PM

I said explosions shouldn't ever simply kill someone, if the projectile strikes you you should die of course.

Varsam · 2013-04-06, 10:17 PM

I have to disagree on the premise that most explosive weapons already operate pretty much on the level that you specify that you want them at (damaging, but not 1hko). Currently most tank shells do 1000 aoe dmg, which is enough to kill an uncerted infantryman outright... but only if they are inside the maximum damage radius of the target area, which is actually only a meter or two across. After that, the damage dropoff on the aoe damage is severe and sudden - it typically takes at least two rounds to kill infantry, more if the misses are wider or the infantry is certed into flak. Explosive weapons are already in a good, yet precarious, place. Making explosive type weapons even less effective I'm afraid would make them not worth using.

I do like the idea of incendiary weapons as an area denial tool though.

camycamera · 2013-04-06, 10:33 PM

good idea, i hope something similar gets implemented.

KodanBlack · 2013-04-07, 11:44 AM

I think that your argument is well thought out, and I certainly understand where you're coming from. However, I have a simple counter to what you're saying. If an explosive, like a grenade, isn't going to kill you, why would it flush you out from behind cover, to a place where the bullets, which can kill you, are flying in your direction. I'd take the hit and stay behind cover, hit my medpack and come out when I'm ready.

Rothnang · 2013-04-07, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by KodanBlack

I think that your argument is well thought out, and I certainly understand where you're coming from. However, I have a simple counter to what you're saying. If an explosive, like a grenade, isn't going to kill you, why would it flush you out from behind cover, to a place where the bullets, which can kill you, are flying in your direction. I'd take the hit and stay behind cover, hit my medpack and come out when I'm ready.

That's an excellent argument, but already adressed in the idea. Grenade type weapons, listed under "Fragmentation" will in fact kill you or severely injure you, but they bounce around for a while so you can get away from them. That's how they flush you out of cover.

Explosive weapons like tank shells however don't give you any warning when they are about to strike, so the assumption becomes that the first shell let's you know another is coming, so people will avoid the next one after having been tipped off by the initial, non-lethal damage.

KodanBlack · 2013-04-07, 12:17 PM

My apologies! I saw that on a reread. My argument has been withdrawn.

Rothnang · 2013-04-07, 12:44 PM

Who or what are you and what are you doing on the internet?!

MorteDeAngelis · 2013-04-07, 12:48 PM

So further reduce the killing power of Tank vs Infantry without any benefit to the tank themselves?

WSNeo · 2013-04-07, 12:52 PM

This was resolved in Planetside 1 by the Armor value on all players, explosive weapons did damage to armor while mitigating the damage done to health. Armor was a value that was restored by engineers using the same tool that they use now making engineers just as valuable as advanced medics .

This prevented people from using weapons primarily used for AV on infantry, and Reavers (A2G common pool aircraft) from farming infantry with rocket pods that were intended to take out tanks. Regular grenades generally took 2-3 to kill a player in rexo armor because of it's higher armor value. Decimators didn't instagib players, it took like 2-3 shots to kill a player but only two direct hits to kill a MAX. It was weird but it definitely worked to prevent people from farming kills with HE and AV weapons.